Talk:Clamor of Souls
Does team mates count as "Allies" ? Would be neat ^^ - Arashi teammates, i think, does count as allies. i know that spirits count as allies but does Minnions count as allies?? if it is this thing is an instant kill --Paulrennan 18:23, 13 May 2006 (CDT) hmm.. does this do X damage to one foe for every ally.. or does this do: for every nearby ally, the same number of foes are struck? --Paulrennan 18:23, 13 May 2006 (CDT) :The first option I believe. I.e. If you have Y allies it will do X damage for upto Y enemies (can't strike the same enemy more than once). Though I don't know if this ignores armor like gaze from beyond does. Does anyone know? --Chrono traveller 23:31, 19 May 2006 (CDT) ::It's one for per ally near you and its lightning damage. (T/ ) 00:13, 20 May 2006 (CDT) :::Chuiu, when you say it is lightning damage, are you implying that it does take into account armor? Gaze from beyond has lightning damage as well, yet it ignores armor. --128.8.120.187 17:53, 20 May 2006 (CDT) ::::Then Gaze from Beyond is bugged. (T/ ) 20:22, 20 May 2006 (CDT) :::::Are you sure? If so, I'll put in the article.--68.48.125.63 21:41, 20 May 2006 (CDT) It is most likely bugged. For elite spell, it does little less damage than Flame Burst, has -5 energy cost, 7 seconds longer recharge and 1/4 longer cast time. While Flame Burst strikes all enemies in range, Clamor of Souls has restriction Chrono traveller mentioned. :I don't see why this is elite. It's on roughly the same power level as Ancestors' Rage, with Ancestors' Rage having the advantages of versitility and a faster recharge time, and Clamor of Souls having the advantages of slightly higher damage and a larger area, as well as significant drawbacks. -- Gordon Ecker 18:43, 18 September 2006 (CDT) Related skills: Mystic Twister, but weaker and more widespread. Kamahl the Fist 18:49, 4 December 2006 (CST) Is this for every ally near the target or every ally near the caster? -- PurpleXVI :Its untargeted so it should be allies near the caster. IceNutz 22:21, 13 December 2006 (CST) DWG really makes this pointless - shorter recharge, same energy cost, larger range, and only slightly less damage. Tycn 03:30, 26 January 2007 (CST) breaking the standard I think the Acquisition note should be left there, i didnt know there was a second one when i was looking for this boss as the note about this was in the notes section and i didn't read it, which is what most people will do when they are getting all the skills. It was a real pain in the ass going back. Xeon 08:42, 24 December 2006 (CST) :I disagree, it should be removed. It should instead be mentioned on the boss page --Blue.rellik 21:57, 13 September 2007 (CDT) Nerf through Neglect This is a sad example of a skill which has been "nerfed through neglect;" skills which it was once better than have been buffed while it has been left alone, to the point where there is nearly no reason to use this skill anymore. Most specifically I'm speaking with regard to CwD; CwD now has the same damage, the same cast time, the same range, no restrictions over how many foes it can it, and a smaller recharge, for only 5 more energy, AND it's not elite. Ancestors' Rage has been similarly (though not nearly so drastically) buffed, and the very presence of DwG makes this even sadder. Can we get the Less Able to Make Effective tag out here? If poor CoS here is going to be so useless, we might as well give it the t-shirt, so to speak. Zaq 05:18, 9 February 2007 (CST) :The ONLY advantage this has over Cruel Was Daoshen and Destructive Was Glaive is that it is a Spell rather than an Item Spell; no worries about dealing with the sudden drop in Energy and perhaps Health. AoE is a bit larger than Ancestor's Rage and that is also an Enchantment, but yeah that also pwns this out of the water. The way I see it, this needs a buff in one of three ways: The AoE needs to be Earshot range; the damage needs to be increased to something like 120 at R12; or, the energy cost needs to be brought down to 5. Any one of those should be enough to compensate, at least somewhat. ANet could also give it a special ability, such as having all struck foes Hexed for X seconds with Clamor of Souls: For X seconds you cannot use Shouts. I mean, "Clamor" is like loud, chaotic noise, isn't it? (T/ ) 22:04, 13 September 2007 (CDT) ::I like entropy's idea, but I think rather than "cannot use shouts" perhaps... "Removes the effects of all shouts; and/or cannot be efected by shouts for x seconds" I think that would make it unique and worthwhile, rather than being an elite version of vocal minority with some damage.76.174.12.172 :::An anti-paragon skill that comes from Factions...yea, that makes sense.-- 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Usage on hero Has anyone tried this on Razah? I did, but he never used it, even when my whole team was within "nearby" range and there were lots of mobs surrounding us. hero AI bug or something else? - 91.153.22.139 08:33, 9 April 2007 (CDT) : Maybe he just knows it's as useless as the comments stated above. D: Luigi 19:32, 12 April 2007 (CDT) Icon Dude its a dead frenzy warrior coming back for his defiled revenge!! (68.63.233.200 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)) Idea Why would a Spike Team of 6 to 8 Rits use this with Shadow Step Skills ... like Dark Prison and/or Death's Charge and/or Caltrops. Shadow step to other team and X6 Clamor is death. Or 5 Rits with 1 Deep Freeze/Grasping Earth Ele with Shockwave. Big Bow 06:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC) :Or use DwG+AR for a spike worth of 1200+ damage on a squishy with a Lightning shield. It's damn predictable tho. And that's why it doesn't work well.. --- -- (s)talkpage 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) :: Or Why not 3 Showckwave + 3 Clamor of Souls + 2 Healers ? Big Bow 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Damage One of the few spells that has its damage inflicted go up exponetially as more people use it, instead of multipicitively , assuming you have enough foes nearby. :Assuming a normal 8 man party, the damage doesn't go up exponentially. Wether one person uses it in an 8 man party, or 6, the damage that person does is the same. Unless assuming one uses this only when noone else is within Nearby range, except other Clamor spikers. But that's bad thinking. --- -- ( ) (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :: I was talking about total damage to foes overall. If one person uses this then they cause x damage to one foe. If two people use this ( and they're boith nearby and theier foes are nearby) then each person does X damage to each foe, or 4x damage (2people damage 2 foes each) add a third and you get 9x, etc. etc. 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :::And you can say the same thing about Searing Flames, since when more than 1 uses it they don't have to light the enemy on fire themselves. Or, ofc, pretty much ALL the Paragon shouts --Gimmethegepgun 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Personally, I'd only consider skills like Unholy Feast to have exponential growth. --JonTheMon 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC) :::Lol; you assume every team mate is beyond Nearby range when casting Clamor. You wouldn't use Clamor when you're alone, you use it when you're all balled up like heck to hurt as many foes as possible. When one person casts this under perfect circumstances, it deals x*8 damage (you+7 mates = 8 nearby allies=8 x damage). If 2 people cast this under perfect circumstances, it's x*16 (still same allies count, just 2 casts). If one person casts Clamor twice (AEcho?), the damage is x*16, too. --- -- ( ) (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Hi, this is why you have to pay attention in senior school math. This page speaks for itself. K2K 10:01, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :Hi, this is why you should pay attention to timestamps; This is the skill we were talking about. --- -- ( ) (talk) 11:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Lawl, even the old version isn't exponential it's linear. Either way... K2K 10:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Clearly you have no idea what they were talking about up there. Because clearly the data set 1, 4, 9, 16, 25 ISN'T exponential --Gimmethegepgun 16:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::If you had 8 of the old Clamor of Souls spikers, then yes, it would be exponential, as they'd all fuel each other. However, if you just had 1 (hypothetically, of course), then he could still use his 7 non-clamor teammates to deal damage 8 times, in which case it'd be linear. Of course, barely anyone ever used this in it's old state. Clamor spike was never popular, whether it was 8 people or 1. --Macros 17:13, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::"One of the few spells that has its damage inflicted go up exponetially as more people use it, instead of multipicitively" - most of the first comment in this header. Meaning, he was talking about more than 1 person using it at a time --Gimmethegepgun 17:25, March 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::8-man party, 8 foes, all balled up perfectly. One person casts: 8x damage. 2 people cast: 16x damage. 3 people cast: 24x damage. Linear. ::::::One person casting, varying amount of allies, perfect amount of foes. No allies: x damage. One ally: 2x damage. Two allies: 3x damage. Linear. ::::::One team casts, other tanks. 1 versus 1: 1x. 2 versus 2: 4x. 3 versus 3: 9x. 4 versus 4: 16x. Exponential. ::::::Imperfect amount of foes. 8 versus 1: 8x. 8 versus 2: 16x. 8 versus 3: 24x. Linear. ::::::What does increase multiplicatively anyhow? For example: RI deals 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. damage. 2 people casting: 2x, 4x, 6x, etc. That's fairly linear. --- -- ( ) (talk) 17:51, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Your Math Teacher MATH should have run Clamor spike :P --Macros 18:06, March 28, 2010 (UTC) Just to cut confusion here, are you guys counting the damage cumulatively if EVERYONE used this? Doesn't really make much sense to do it that way but I suppose it would be if you did it like that, yes. If this spell was to actually be exponential it would have to deal exponential damage if only you were casting it (not taking into consideration if others are using it), for example "You hit one foe. You hit twice as many foes for each ally in ear shot.". As it is (or should I say was? :P) each individual's casting has a linear damage scaling based on allies. Oh fun :D K2K 13:44, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :Well, the original post of this topic, as Gimmie pointed out, was talking about multiple people. --Macros 15:05, March 30, 2010 (UTC)